Leonard v. Kanner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leonard v. Kanner

239 A.D.2d 153, 657 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4641

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 6, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 153 (Leonard v. Kanner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leonard v. Kanner, 239 A.D.2d 153, 657 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about April 9, 1996, which denied plaintiff’s motion, and granted defendants’ cross motion, for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We affirm on the ground urged before the motion court. Although the business judgment rule did not govern defendants’ [154]*154decision to withhold approval of plaintiff’s UCC foreclosure sale purchase of the coop shares since the proprietary lease imposed a reasonableness standard (see, Ludwig v 25 Plaza Tenants Corp., 184 AD2d 623), there was a reasonable basis for rejecting plaintiff. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find that they do not warrant a different result. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about April 9, 1996, which denied plaintiff’s motion, and granted defendants’ cross motion, for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We affirm on the ground urged before the motion court. Although the business judgment rule did not govern defendants’ [154]*154decision to withhold approval of plaintiff’s UCC foreclosure sale purchase of the coop shares since the proprietary lease imposed a reasonableness standard (see, Ludwig v 25 Plaza Tenants Corp., 184 AD2d 623), there was a reasonable basis for rejecting plaintiff. We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find that they do not warrant a different result. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 153, 657 N.Y.S.2d 894, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-v-kanner-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack